Bar-Ilan University's Parashat Hashavua Study Center

Parashat Reeh

Lectures on the weekly Torah reading by the faculty
of Bar-Ilan University in Ramat Gan, Israel.
A project of the Faculty of Jewish Studies,
Paul and Helene Shulman Basic Jewish Studies Center,
and the Office of the Campus Rabbi. Published on the Internet
under the sponsorship of Bar-Ilan University's
International Center for Jewish Identity.
Inquiries and comments to:
Dr. Isaac Gottlieb, Department of Bible,
gottlii@mail.biu.ac.il

Parashat Re'eh 5759/1999

The Dukhifat or Hoopoe

Yaron Seri

Department of Arabic

The dukhifat is mentioned twice in the Bible, in Leviticus
11:19 and in Deuteronomy 14:18 (this week's reading), at the end
of the list of birds forbidden to eat. Today the dukhifat
is identified with the Upupa epops.

Some people maintain that the name dukhifat, like its counterpart
in other languages, is onomatopoeic: dukhifat in Hebrew,
kakufa in Syriac, kufat in Coptic, epops
in Greek, upupa in Latin, hoopoe in English, and
hudhud in Arabic are all names that refer to the same bird--Upupa
epops--even though there are phonetic differences between
them.[1] This is because the sounds which the onomatopoeic names
seek to imitate are perceived differently by the ears of people
speaking different languages; hence the difference in the names.
Only the Aramaic translations of Scripture did not render the
word dukhifat onomatopoeically, rather descriptively, in
a way that brings out its prominent characteristic: nagar
tura[2] or tarnegol bara. Talshir showed that nagar
tura [= mountain woodpecker] was the term current in the west,
whereas tarnegol bara [=wild rooster] was used in the east.[3]
The same can be seen from checking the cross-references in Talmudic
literature.

The hoopoe has both of the characteristics represented by each
of these names: it has a coxcomb and has the trait of pecking.
Regarding the crest on its head, the Sages said (Hullin
63a): "Dukhifat -- [so named] because its majesty
is double (kafut=kaful)," i.e., du-khifat.[4]
Ralbag points out the pecking trait of the dukhifat:

So named because it has the trait of scratching at the rock, as
if to say du kifat; which is to say that it makes two of
the rock, for rocks and mountains are called kefim, as
in, "They clamber up the rocks (u-va-kefim alu)"
(Jer. 4:29).[5]

That the dukhifat's name is translated onomatopoeically
is generally accepted, but the explanations given for its name
are subject to controversy. Anan ben David and his Karaite followers
deduced from the identification of the dukhifat as the
wild rooster (tarnegol bara), that if this bird may not
be eaten, then neither may the domestic rooster.[6] It is amazing
that the Karaites accepted an identification for the dukhifat
which stems from the Oral Torah, considering that they do not
acknowledge the Rabbinic tradition. Identifying the dukhifat
is a cardinal issue in understanding how the Karaites permitted
birds and other animals to be eaten, since they deduced the fundamental
laws regarding forbidden foods from the case of this bird. Since
the Sages' criteria for kashrut of birds were not accepted by
the Karaites, they deduced criteria of kashrut from the case of
birds which are undeniably kosher: turtledoves and pigeons.
Anan's approach was that anything that could be sacrificed was
kosher; since turtledoves and pigeons are explicitly mentioned
in the Torah, only they are permitted, and the case of other birds
must be deduced from them. Close examination revealed that pigeons
are characterized by their practice of drawing water into their
beaks and giving it to their chicks to drink; this is the only
criteria that Anan specified regarding permissible birds.[7]

Saadiah Gaon vehemently attacked this view in his long commentary
on Leviticus, where he disproved the Karaite's arguments one by
one.[8] Ibn Ezra also attacked them sharply: "The Sadducees
[i.e. Karaites] said it [the dukhifat] is a hen; but they
are the fools of the world, and who told them so?"

Rashi did not always translate dukhifat consistently; in
Leviticus 11:19 he called it herufe [=heupe], i.e.,
Upupa, which is what we know as the hoopoe, but in his
commentary on the Talmud (Hullin 63a) he held that it is
"a large bird like a rooster, what we call paon salvage
(=wild peacock). Moche Catane, author of Otzar ha-leazim,
a listing and explanation of Rashi's French translations for words
in the Bible and Talmud, thought that the French name cited by
Rashi might have been "the popular name of this bird."[9]

Despite its magnificent looks, the dukhifat is known as
the symbol of foul odor, since it builds its nest of feces and
the odor adheres to it and its chicks.[10] Accordingly, the Moslems
also forbid eating the dukhifat because of its odor and
because it lives on worms.[11] Notwithstanding its bad smell,
hurting this bird is forbidden in Islam[12] because of the special
status it enjoys due to its closeness to King Solomon.[13] It
is said that the crown on its head was given it by the Creator
because of the good deed it does with it: when it dies, it puts
its dead on its head, and this is why it smells foul.[14]

In short, there is uniformity in the way dukhifat is rendered
in different languages, but there is variety in the ways the bird
is identified: of particular interest is the Karaite interpretation
of dukhifat as referring to the rooster.

[1] D. Talshir, Shemot Ba'alei ha-Hayyim ba-Targum ha-Arami
shel ha-Shomronim, doctoral dissertation, Jerusalem 1981,
p. 144, n. 3. It is surprising that the Arabic rendition, hudhud,
an obvious example, is not included in the list of names given
by Talshir, nor does he mention it at all later on.

[2] There is also a Samaritan variant, nakar tura.

[3] Talshir, p. 146.

[4] In his commentary on Hullin 63a, Rashi explains:
"It has a thick crest, as if it were doubled over into its
head and fastened there" (Tosafot).

It is interesting that Catane (Otzar Laazei Rashi [see
note 9 below], p. 10), believes that "the word huppe
in modern French, which derives from the Latin upupa, was
influenced by the verb keruper (=to stand on end), because
the dukhifat is known for its peaked crest."

[5] Ralbag, Commentary on the Torah, II, 135.1.

[6] Y. Kafih, Perushei Rav Sa'adiah Gaon la-Torah, Jerusalem
1984.

[7] Anan is cited in the commentaries of Yefet ben Ali, Abu al-Faraj
Furqan and others. The texts are still in manuscript form, but
passages have been published by Pinsker in Likkutei Kadmoniyot,
Vienna 1860; Y. Kafih, Perushei, pp. 123-124.

[11] Al-Damiri, Kitab al-Hayawan al-Kubra, 2, Beirut 1994,
p. 518. He also cites an opinion there (Al-Shaf'i), saying that
it may be eaten since it can be used for redeeming, and according
to his understanding only that which may be eaten may be used
for redeeming.

[12] Al-Jaht, p. 526; ibid., 4, p. 17.

[13] Based on the Koran, sura al-Naml, vv. 16-43.

[14] Al-Jaht, 3, p. 510-511.

Prepared for Internet Publication by the Center for IT & IS Staff at Bar-Ilan University.